CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Magdalen House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines management, safe recruitment and systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Some feedback raised concerns about staffing visibility and standards of cleanliness, but staff were seen responding promptly during the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership and management were inconsistent after changes in the provider and management team. Inspectors found problems with communication, staff approach, cleanliness, laundry and recording and responding to concerns.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found inconsistent leadership and rated well-led Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on four dates, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, toured the home and checked care, medicine, safety and management records.
Inspectors found people were generally safe and treated with kindness and respect. Staffing was improving, medicines were given safely, infection control was mostly effective and relatives could visit when they wished.
The main weakness was leadership. Changes of provider and managers had caused confusion and inconsistency in communication, cleanliness, laundry, staff approach and how concerns were handled. The home had an action plan, but inspectors said it was too early to know whether the changes would last.
People felt safe
People and relatives generally said people were safe and protected. Inspectors found systems to reduce the risks of abuse and avoidable harm.
“People said they felt safe living in the home and relatives told us they were confident that their family members were well protected.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors observed part of a medicines round and found it was carried out safely. Records showed medicines were given as required.
“Medicine administration records showed people received their medicines as required.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Vacancies and reliance on agency staff had reduced. Inspectors found enough staff on duty during the inspection and saw staff respond promptly to requests.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and they had been recruited safely.” from the report
Friendly atmosphere
People and relatives described a welcoming home. Inspectors also observed kind and compassionate interactions.
“There was a warm and friendly atmosphere within the home.” from the report
Unstable leadership
needs fixingSeveral changes of manager and a new provider had affected stability. Staff reported confusion and mixed morale, and the home was recruiting for a manager.
“Since our last inspection there had been a new provider and several management changes which had impacted on the stability in the home.” from the report
Concerns and complaints records
needs fixingThe recording of concerns and complaints was inconsistent. The home was changing its feedback processes, but inspectors said improvements still needed to become established.
“There were inconsistencies regarding the documentation of concerns and complaints.” from the report
Cleanliness and hygiene
needs fixingSome relatives reported that cleanliness standards had slipped. Inspectors were only somewhat assured about safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for the day-to-day running of the home, and when will a registered manager be appointed?
- 02What changes have been made to improve communication and consistency between managers and staff?
- 03How are cleanliness, laundry and infection control now checked, and what happens when standards fall?
- 04How are relatives' concerns and complaints recorded, investigated and followed up?
- 05How are staffing levels and staff visibility monitored during the busiest times of day?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 June 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during a targeted visit.
The CQC visited the home on 19 November 2020. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. They found enough personal protective equipment, suitable social distancing arrangements, relevant staff training and infection control policies based on current government guidance.
The home was assured in areas including visitor safety, testing, safe admissions, use of PPE and managing infection outbreaks. This inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for Safe.
Clean environment
The home was clean, hygienic and free from unpleasant smells throughout the inspection.
“The service was clean, hygienic and free of unpleasant odours throughout.” from the report
PPE and infection training
Staff had relevant infection control training and their skills were checked. Inspectors saw staff using PPE appropriately and found enough supplies.
“Staff had received relevant training in infection control and prevention and had their competencies assessed in this area.” from the report
Prepared environment
The layout had been adapted for social distancing, with a staff changing area and laundry facilities intended to reduce infection risks.
“The environment was well organised and had been adapted to support social distancing.” from the report
Risk assessments
Individual risks for people using the service and risks to staff had been assessed, with measures put in place to reduce identified risks.
“Individual risk assessments had been conducted in consultation with people who used the service and or their representatives.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently preventing visitors from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How often are staff trained and checked on infection prevention and PPE use?
- 03How do you test people living here and staff, and what happens when there is a positive result?
- 04How do you manage infection outbreaks and keep families informed?
- 05How are individual health and safety risks assessed with residents or their representatives?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Magdalen House Care Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 July 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.